Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Czernobog]

Since you seem to have a hard time understanding the concept:

is a personal attack, and an ad hominem. The purpose of an ad hominem is to distract from a debate by forcing your opponent to defend themselves, rather than their argument.
For the record, this is an example of another type of distraction:

It's called a non-sequitur. Non-sequiturs are characterized by declaritive statements that allow no room for debate, and are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Now that you have been educated on the error of you debating style, would you like to try again?

Truth is your enemy dumb ass.

And you have reached your quota for dumbfuckery for the day. Feel free to respond, I will just laugh, and be the adult in the room, and not respond.

Lemme know when you would like to go back to having an actual discussion, like an adult, instead of just stomping your feet, and calling me names like a 4-year-old.

Speaking of dumbfuckery, did you know that one , and only one demographic group is relied on to populate the planet?

True story

Speaking of dumbfuckery, did you know that the planet is pretty well populated?

True story.

You can thank us later if you wish

For what? Man was ******* and procreating long before any stupid theology tried to take credit for a biological process. And guess what? During all of that time, there was a cross-section of every society that was homosexual. And, shockingly enough, it never once destroyed man, or prevented man from procreating, and proliferating. Somehow, I don't think it will today, either.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax.

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.

That is correct. Elections have consequences at the federal and state levels. See SCOTUS decision on ACA. Our government, state and local, can regulate ALL commerce, and can tax us for pretty much anything but voting.

So in a snit over the ACA you feel everyone else should be fucked over...
Great.

No, I don't feel anyone should be treated thus. You've miss-understood me from the start I suppose.

My point here, was that the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution ended the republic. And then the 17th Amendment removed the power of the states to resist majority rule.

This power that we gave our government can be used for good, such as for giving blacks and women, jews, gays, etc. equal voting rights and the right to commerce in the public square without discrimination from bigotry. And it can also be used to take away your life, liberty, and property based on the whim of the majority.

 

[bodecea]

So what do we do with the remaining 20 states that do not acknowledge gay marriages?

What happens when a gay family enters one of those states and has a medical emergency where their marital relationship is not acknowledged?

What happens when gay married soldiers are stationed in those states and receive unequal benefits and treatment from that state?

That's how the advocates of marriage equality will chip away at those laws.

I don't see how we can continue in a situation where your marital status changes as you move between states

I remember the days when people went to Nevada to get quickie divorces then went back home....they were recognized.

 

[Czernobog]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

Funny , make the argument that incest should be legal, then



Runnnnnnnnnn

Who's running? I said feel froggy.
Jake is just pointing out that the argument that legalizing marriage equality necessitates legalizing incest as well seems to be consistently coming from the Far Right. This consistent trend would seem to suggest that there is some interest in seeing this agenda realized...

 

[RKMBrown]

So what do we do with the remaining 20 states that do not acknowledge gay marriages?

What happens when a gay family enters one of those states and has a medical emergency where their marital relationship is not acknowledged?

What happens when gay married soldiers are stationed in those states and receive unequal benefits and treatment from that state?

That's how the advocates of marriage equality will chip away at those laws.

I don't see how we can continue in a situation where your marital status changes as you move between states

It won't. There are too many statues that allow a married couple from another state the right to live as a married couple in a state where they would not have been allowed to get married. For example, age restrictions.

I don't think they will be forced to hand out marriage licenses, but they will be bound by the license handed out in another state.

It's more like when I was 19 I could only drink in some states not all states... but States that make it illegal can't put me in jail for drinking in a state where it is legal.

 

[martybegan]

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax.

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.

That is correct. Elections have consequences at the federal and state levels. See SCOTUS decision on ACA. Our government, state and local, can regulate ALL commerce, and can tax us for pretty much anything but voting.

So in a snit over the ACA you feel everyone else should be fucked over...
Great.

No, I don't feel anyone should be treated thus. You've miss-understood me from the start I suppose.

My point here, was that the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution ended the republic. And then the 17th Amendment removed the power of the states to resist majority rule.

This power that we gave our government can be used for good, such as for giving blacks and women, jews, gays, etc. equal voting rights and the right to commerce in the public square without discrimination from bigotry. And it can also be used to take away your life, liberty, and property based on the whim of the majority.

Ah.

What i see is a mis-use of said amendments, but I understand your point that if they weren't passed we wouldn't be having these problems.

It goes to my point of the courts being legislators instead of adjudicators.

 

[Czernobog]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.

You mean masturbation?

That question would seem to suggest you don't know the meaning of the word masturbation. I'm curious...you have had sex at least once in your life, right?

 

[Czernobog]

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

No that means you probably have early onset of Alzheimers. Life liberty etc. are in the 14th amendment. Equal protection clause is in the 14th amendment. Commerce clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Thus.. public accommodation laws are legal per the commerce clause if federal, and per the 14th if state.

Again, the definition of public accommodation has been stretched to meaningless. The whole "go private" argument is moot when you make everything a public accommodation.

By this use of the commerce clause and the 14th amendment you basically open up the government to regulate ANYTHING it wants, to punish ANYONE it wants, and to **** over EVERYONE.

No it's not. It has always meant the same thing: Private clubs, and businesses are those which do no business with the public, are not advertised to the public, and are not open to the public. They are available by invitation, and referral only. When you run your business in that manner you have 100% control of who you do, and do not do business with, and no one thinks twice about it. However, the minute you open your doors to the public you are operating a public accommodation. See how that word public pays an important part in how public accommodations are defined?

 

[RKMBrown]

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax.

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.

That is correct. Elections have consequences at the federal and state levels. See SCOTUS decision on ACA. Our government, state and local, can regulate ALL commerce, and can tax us for pretty much anything but voting.

So in a snit over the ACA you feel everyone else should be fucked over...
Great.

No, I don't feel anyone should be treated thus. You've miss-understood me from the start I suppose.

My point here, was that the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution ended the republic. And then the 17th Amendment removed the power of the states to resist majority rule.

This power that we gave our government can be used for good, such as for giving blacks and women, jews, gays, etc. equal voting rights and the right to commerce in the public square without discrimination from bigotry. And it can also be used to take away your life, liberty, and property based on the whim of the majority.

Ah.

What i see is a mis-use of said amendments, but I understand your point that if they weren't passed we wouldn't be having these problems.

It goes to my point of the courts being legislators instead of adjudicators.

But the courts didn't pass the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments, the people did. The wording of these amendments is BRUTALLY CLEAR. If the courts say the 14th equal protection clause does not apply to particular situations, like the gay marriage issue, then that is legislating. The equal protection clause does not say more or less protection based on the whims of the majority. Thus, applying the equal protection clause to gays is not legislating it's going by the CLEAR meaning of the clause.

That said, yes if these amendments were not already passed then our government would not have said powers and we would be fighting these issues out state by state, till support for an amendment came around.

 

[Czernobog]

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax.

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.

But, in accordance with your logic, taxes are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so they are obviously not constitutional. See how patently stupid that sounds? Equal treatment under the law is, which is why the public accommodation laws are also constitutional.

 

[Czernobog]

I guess Justice Kennedy granted stays against gay marriage in Idaho and Nevada yesterday and I just heard about it now in the media...

He took back the stay in Nevada because the officials there had not asked for it, though I believe they have now asked for it. Which I think shows that differences within states in the same court circuit should be considered.

Actually, he revised that, and only granted the stay in Idaho. This would seem to suggest that there might be something in the Idaho case that caught the court's attention that wasn't present in the other cases. It'll be interesting to see where this goes...

 

[Pop23]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.

You mean masturbation?

I see you've thought about it some.

Correct

 

[daws101]

several days in and zero destruction of society

 

[JakeStarkey]

Has anyone been harmed by marriage equality since the ruling?

 

[RKMBrown]

Has anyone been harmed by marriage equality since the ruling?

Several religious authoritarians saw their blood pressure go through the roof.

 

[daws101]

Has anyone been harmed by marriage equality since the ruling?

none nobody.
there may be some self inflicted wounds by the homophobes but they don't count.

 

[Pop23]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.

You mean masturbation?

That question would seem to suggest you don't know the meaning of the word masturbation. I'm curious...you have had sex at least once in your life, right?

Many times lad. Simulating it with a mouth, rectum, or humping a pillow is masturbation.

Lesson over

 

[Czernobog]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.

You mean masturbation?

That question would seem to suggest you don't know the meaning of the word masturbation. I'm curious...you have had sex at least once in your life, right?

Many times lad. Simulating it with a mouth, rectum, or humping a pillow is masturbation.

Lesson over

Well, then you learned the wrong lesson, son. Masturbation is self-gratification. In other words, it does not involve the body parts of another person.

Lesson over.

 

[Pop23]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.

You mean masturbation?

That question would seem to suggest you don't know the meaning of the word masturbation. I'm curious...you have had sex at least once in your life, right?

Many times lad. Simulating it with a mouth, rectum, or humping a pillow is masturbation.

Lesson over

Well, then you learned the wrong lesson, son. Masturbation is self-gratification. In other words, it does not involve the body parts of another person.

Lesson over.

You, of course have heard of mutual masturbation

Here's a clue, cuz you're kinda slooowwwwww

When that dog is humping your leg , you're not guilty of beastiality. The dog ain't having sex with you , he's using you to MASTURBATE

Get laid once (with the opposite sex)

You might understand

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop is still lost in his own universe

And he wants to rule the normal universe

meh